1. Coins of a half-shekel were required by everyone so that each individual could give the half-shekel he was obligated to give. Therefore, when a person went to a money-changer to exchange a shekel for two half-shekalim, he would give the money changer an extra amount in addition to the shekel.¹Rashi (Chulin 25b) explains that this additional amount was given to tip the scales in favor of the money changer. The Meiri explains that since half-shekel coins were in demand, the value of two such coins was slightly more than a shekel. Rav Kapach [based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:6)] explains that this additional amount was a fee paid to the Temple treasury for providing the services of a money-changer. Based on the latter two explanations, if a person gives a half-shekel coin, he is not obligated to add a kolbon. This extra amount is referred to as a kolbon. Therefore, when two individuals give a shekel [to discharge the obligation incumbent] upon both of them, they are obligated to give a kolbon.²A single kolbon. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit.].)

2. Any [two individuals] who are not obligated to give shekalim - e.g., two women or two slaves - and who gave a shekel are not obligated to give a kolbon.³Since their gift is voluntary in nature, they are not obligated to add more to it. Similarly, if one person was obligated and another was not obligated, and the one who was obligated gave [a half-shekel] on behalf of the one who was not obligated - e.g., a man gave a [full] shekel on his own behalf, and on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave - he is not obligated to give a kolbon.

Priests are also not obligated to give a kolbon,⁴Since priests are not compelled to give a half-shekel for the reasons mentioned above (see the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 10), they are also not obligated to give a kolbon (Kessef Mishneh). nor is a person who gives on behalf of a priest.

3. A person who gives a shekel on behalf of himself and a poor person, or his neighbor, or an inhabitant of his city, is not obligated to give a kolbon, if he gave [the half-shekel on behalf of his colleague] as a gift.⁵Although these individuals are obligated to give a half-shekel, since they did not give on their own behalf, the individual who gave on their behalf is doing a service for the Temple treasury. Hence, he is freed of the obligation of the kolbon. [The rationale is] that he gave an [extra] half-shekel to increase the number of shekalim. If, however, he gave the half-shekel on behalf of his colleagues as a loan to be repaid when they have the means, he is obligated to give a kolbon.

4. Brothers who have not divided the estate left to them by their father - and similarly, partners⁶The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, because of a disagreement regarding the version of the text in the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:7), which serves as the Rambam's source. The Rambam's version of the text appears to have read האחים והשותפים, "The brothers and the partners." The Ra'avad's version of the text read האחים השותפים, "The brothers who are partners." According to the Ra'avad, ordinary partners are obligated to give a kolbon. who give one shekel on behalf of the two individuals - are not obligated to give a kolbon.⁷Since their business interests are combined, they are considered as a single individual. In the above-mentioned Mishnah, and in Bechorot 9:3 and other sources, our Sages contrast the obligation to give a kolbon with the obligation to tithe one's herds. Whenever these individuals are not obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are considered as a single entity, and they are obligated to tithe them together. Whenever they are obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are not considered as a single entity, and they are not obligated to tithe them together.

When does the above apply? When the partners have conducted business with the funds of the partnership, and [the initial funds are no longer present]. If, however, one individual brought funds and the other brought funds and they joined them together, but did not exchange or spend the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon.⁸Although joining the funds together establishes a partnership (Hilchot Shluchin V'Shutafin 4:1), as long as the initial funds are still in the hands of the partnership, there is still an individual dimension to each person's investment (loc. cit.:3). When the initial funds have been spent and the partnership begins generating its own income, then the two people are considered to have a joint income.

If they conducted business with the funds of the partnership, afterwards divided the assets, and then entered into a new partnership, they are obligated to give a kolbon until they conduct business under the new partnership agreement, and exchange the money [in the partnership's account].

5. When [by contrast] brothers or partners jointly own an animal and funds, and then they subsequently divide the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon although they have not divided the animal.⁹The intent appears to be that since the brothers or the partners divided the funds available to them, it is clear that they no longer desire to conduct business as a single entity. We assume that the reason they did not divide the animal was merely one of convenience, and ultimately the partnership will be divided entirely.

The Ra'avad quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:7), which states that this applies only when the livestock do not comprise the majority of the assets of the estate or the partnership. If they did comprise the majority of the assets, a different ruling would apply. The Kessef Mishneh and the Migdal Oz offer different explanations for the Rambam's position. Conversely, however, if they divided the animal, but did not divide the funds, they are not obligated to give a kolbon until they divide the funds. We do not say that the funds are about to be divided.¹⁰Although there is no difficulty in dividing funds, the very fact that the funds have not been divided is an indication that the brothers and the partners still intend to do business as a single enterprise.

6. When a person gives a shekel to the Temple treasury so that it will be considered as if he gave the half-shekel he is obligated to give, and so that he should receive a half-shekel that was collected from others, he is obligated [to give] two kolbonot.¹¹He is requiring that two different exchanges be made on his behalf: a) the division of his shekel so that he will have fulfilled his obligation of giving a half-shekel; and

b) that he receive a half-shekel in return.

He is obligated to pay a kolbon for each of these transactions (Rav Kapach, based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shekalim 1:6). In contrast, if his shekel were given entirely to [the Temple treasury], he would be obligated to give one kolbon [only].¹²As stated in Halachah 3.

7. What is the value of a kolbon? When two dinarim were given as a half-shekel, the value of a kolbon was half a ma'ah - i.e., one twelfth of a dinar. A kolbon of a lesser value was never given.¹³For as explained in Chapter 1, Halachot 5-6, this was the value of the half-shekel given in the desert. A lesser amount was never given.

The kolbonot do not have the same status as the shekalim. The money-changers would gather them in a separate collection until they were required by the Temple treasury.¹⁴The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:4) quote different Sages who offer varying opinions regarding the purpose for which the kolbonot were used. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam used an indefinite choice of words because no final decision is reached in these texts.

8. A person whose shekel is lost is responsible for it until it is given to the Temple treasury.¹⁵Even if the initial setting aside of funds had already been performed in the Temple, the half-shekalim given afterwards are required actually to reach the Temple treasurers.

[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a city send their shekalim by means of an emissary and they are stolen or lost: If [the emissary] was an unpaid watchman, he should take an oath to them,¹⁶The emissaries must take three oaths: that the funds were lost or stolen, that they did not use them for their own purposes prior to their being lost, and that they were not negligent (Hilchot She'ilah UFikadon 4:1). and then he is freed of liability, as is any other unpaid watchman. [The people] then must give their half-shekalim a second time.¹⁷In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1), the Rambam emphasizes that the people are required to pay a second time because entrusting the funds to an unpaid watchman is considered a careless and irresponsible approach.

Note the contrast to the laws regarding a paid watchman in the following halachah, which differentiates between whether or not the loss took place before funds were set aside from the Temple treasury.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that it is possible to interpret Bava Metzia 58a as implying that the inhabitants should be freed of the obligation of paying a second time if the money was lost after the funds were set aside in the Temple treasury. The Rambam, however, does not choose this interpretation, for the reasons mentioned above.

If the inhabitants of the city say, "Since we are giving our shekalim a second time [regardless], we do not desire for the emissary to be required to take an oath, for he is trusted by us," their request is denied. It is an edict of the Sages that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken.¹⁸According to the Torah itself, an oath is never required concerning consecrated articles. Bava Metzia (loc. cit.) explains, however, that our Sages instituted this oath so that the people would not treat consecrated articles in a disrespectful manner.

If the first¹⁹We have translated the terms "first" and "later" without adding any clarification at this point, because, as mentioned in the conclusion of the following halachah, there is a difference of opinion regarding their meaning. shekalim were discovered after the emissary took the oath, both sets of shekalim are consecrated, but [the later shekalim] are not considered [as payment] for the following year. The first [shekalim] should be included among the shekalim of the present year, and the later [shekalim] should be included together with [the collection of shekalim] from the previous year.²⁰As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2, every year, it was possible for a person to give a half-shekel to compensate for his failure to do so in the previous year. The extra shekalim were added to this collection.

9. [The following rules apply when] they sent their shekalim with a paid watchman, who is liable in the event of theft and loss, and [the shekalim] were lost because of forces beyond their control - e.g., they were taken by armed thieves. [The emissary] is not held liable.²¹A paid emissary is never liable for losses due to forces beyond his control, as explained in Hilchot Sechirut, Chapter 3.

[Whether or not the inhabitants of the city are required to pay a second time depends on whether or not the funds in the Temple treasury have been set aside²²As described in Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 9..] If [the inhabitants' funds] were lost because of forces beyond [the emissary's] control after the funds [in the Temple treasury] were set aside, the emissary is required to take an oath²³This oath, like the one mentioned in the previous halachah, and like the one mentioned in the following clause, is Rabbinic in origin. to the Temple treasurer,²⁴The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam is quoting the text of the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1) despite the fact that the meaning of that phrase is changed by an interpretation offered in the preliminary discussion of the issue in Bava Metzia 58a: that the emissary takes the oath to the inhabitants of the city in the presence of the Temple treasurer in order to collect his wage, or in order to clear their reputation.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains, however, that once the Talmud mentions the reason for the oath stated in the previous halachah, "that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken," this interpretation is no longer necessary. and the inhabitants of the city are no longer liable. For the person who set aside the funds in the Temple treasury, did so on behalf of [those whose funds] have been collected, and on behalf of [those whose funds] have not yet been collected. Thus, the funds were already in the custody of the Temple treasury.²⁵As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 9, when the person setting aside the funds in the Temple treasury makes the separation, he has the intention that the money set aside should be used to purchase sacrifices on behalf of all the Jews who donated or who will donate money for that purpose. Therefore, after the inhabitants of the city fulfill their obligation by sending the funds with a paid watchman, it is considered as if the funds were already given to the Temple treasury.

The inhabitants of the city [are freed of liability], because there was nothing more that they could have done. They gave [the funds] to a paid watchman, who is liable in the event of theft and loss, and [the loss of property] due to forces beyond a person's control is an uncommon phenomenon.

If [the inhabitants' funds] were lost before the funds [in the Temple treasury] were set aside, they are considered as still being in the possession of the inhabitants of the city. The emissary is required to take an oath to the inhabitants of the city, and they are required to pay [their half-shekalim a second time].

If [the emissary] took [the required] oath, and they collected shekalim a second time, and then the thieves returned [the stolen funds], both sets of shekalim are consecrated, but [the later shekalim] are not considered [as payment] for the following year. Instead, [the later shekalim] should be included together with [the collection of shekalim] from the previous year.

There is an opinion²⁶The source for the difference of opinion mentioned by the Rambam is the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1). that states that the first shekalim, which will be included among the shekalim of the present year, are the shekalim that were originally stolen, lost, or taken by forces beyond the emissary's control and returned. Another opinion states that the first shekalim are the shekalim that come to the hands of the Temple treasurer first.

10. [The following rules apply when] a person gives a half-shekel to a colleague to give to the money-changer on behalf of the donor, and instead the agent gives it to him on his own behalf, so that he will not be compelled [to give his own half-shekel at this time]: If the funds [in the Temple treasury] were already set aside,²⁷This ruling is also based on the principles mentioned in the previous halachah: that the person who set aside the funds has in mind all the funds that will be donated in the future. Accordingly, once the person gives his half-shekel to his colleague, it becomes the property of the Temple treasury. the agent is considered to have misappropriated consecrated property.²⁸If his act was intentional, he receives lashes as punishment and must reimburse the Temple treasury. If his transgression was unintentional, he is obligated to bring a sacrifice for atonement and to reimburse the Temple treasury, adding a fifth of the shekel's value. (See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:3.) For the [half-]shekel was already considered to be the property of the Temple treasury, since [the funds] were set aside on behalf of all those who would give in the future. Thus, [the agent] extricated himself²⁹A person is liable for misappropriating consecrated property when benefit is derived from it. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:2), the Rambam emphasizes that the benefit the person derives is that he extricates himself from a situation where his property would be taken to compel him to pay the half-shekel. The actual fulfillment of the mitzvah is not taken into account, because "the mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction." [by using] consecrated funds and hence derived benefit from this [half-]shekel.

If the funds [in the Temple treasury] have not yet been set aside, the agent is not considered to have misappropriated consecrated property. He is, however, obligated to return the half-shekel to the colleague who gave it to him. Similarly, a person who robs [one of the money-changers of the Temple treasury] of a half-shekel, or steals³⁰In halachic terminology, robbery refers to the seizure of a person's property by force, while stealing refers to the theft of an object without his knowledge. it from him, and uses it for his half-shekel, is considered to have fulfilled his obligation [to give a half-shekel]. He must [reimburse] the [money-changer], [and] pay twice its value³¹This ruling applies to a thief, but not to a robber. If, at the time of the theft the funds had not been set aside in the Temple treasury, the half-shekel the person steals has not been consecrated. Hence, the thief is required to make double restitution, as stated in Exodus 22:3. or add a fifth of its value³²The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers to a person who steals from a money-changer after the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. He is thus making personal use of consecrated property and must add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained above.

The Or Sameach differs and states that this refers also to a person who steals before the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. A person who is charged with theft, clears himself by taking an oath in court, and later admits the theft, is required to add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained in Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1. [depending on the situation].

11. [The following rules apply when] a person gives his half-shekel from consecrated funds:³³I.e., money that was designated for the improvement of the Temple complex. The Rambam is speaking about an instance where the person is unaware that the funds that he used had been consecrated. If he had been aware, different rules would apply. After the funds from the Temple treasury are set aside, when the funds [from the Temple treasury] are used [to purchase a sacrifice], the person becomes obligated for the misappropriation of consecrated property.³⁴For a portion of his half-shekel is considered to have been used towards this purchase. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention the need for an animal to be purchased with the funds from the Temple treasury in the previous halachah as well. (See Or Sameach.) He has, however, fulfilled his obligation to give a half-shekel.

Should one give [a half-shekel] from funds that were designated as the second tithe,³⁵I.e., money used to redeem the second tithe, which must be used to purchase food that will be eaten in Jerusalem. (See Deuteronomy 14:24-26.) he should partake of a quantity of food that is of equivalent value in Jerusalem.³⁶I.e., after the fact, it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used. Should one give [a half-shekel] from funds that were given in exchange for the produce of the Sabbatical year,³⁷When produce that grew in the Sabbatical year is purchased, the seller may use the funds he receives for only one purpose: to purchase produce (that was not grown in the Sabbatical year). Moreover, the produce he purchases must be eaten according to all the laws that pertain to produce of the Sabbatical year. (See Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 6:6-10.) he should partake of a quantity of food that is of equivalent value, and treat it with the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical year.³⁸In this instance, as well, after the fact it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used. Should one give [a half-shekel] from an apostate city,³⁹Which must be destroyed entirely, together with all the property contained within it. (See Deuteronomy 13:17.) his act is of no consequence whatsoever.⁴⁰For the property from such a city is considered as having no value whatsoever. It is as if he gave ashes. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, noting that this concept is so well known that it would seem unnecessary for the Rambam to mention it.

Several of the later commentaries offer possible resolutions to this difficulty. For example, the Merkevet HaMishneh states that this refers to money from the second tithe found in an apostate city. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:15.) Aruch HaShulchan states that this refers to money set aside for the half-shekel, but not given to the money-changers for that purpose. If it has already been given, it should be brought to the Temple treasury.

12. When a person has set aside a [half-]shekel under the impression that he was obligated to give it, and then discovers that he was not obligated, his [half-]shekel is not consecrated.⁴¹This follows a general principle that when a person consecrates property because of a misconception, the property is not consecrated.

When a person gave two [half-]shekalim, and later discovered that he was obligated to give only one, [the following rules apply:] If he gave them one after another, the second [half-]shekel is not consecrated.⁴²For this is identical to the situation described in the first clause. If he gave them both at one time, one is a [half-]shekel, and one is considered as overpayment for a [half-]shekel.⁴³Which, as stated in the following halachah, remains unconsecrated. If a person set aside a [half-]shekel and died, the [half-shekel] should be designated as funds donated [for the purpose of purchasing burnt offerings].⁴⁴The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 105) explains the reason for this law. Exodus 30:15 states that the half-shekalim are given for the purpose of atonement, and the dead are not in need of atonement.

13. [The following rules apply when a person] takes coins in his hands and says, "These are for my [half-]shekel,"⁴⁵The decision rendered in this clause represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from that of his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:3), where he writes that if a person brings money and says that it is for his half-shekel, the remainder is considered a donation and is used to purchase burnt offerings. This change of view is based on the discussion of the subject in the Jerusalem Talmud. or when he collects ma'ah⁴⁶A ma'ah was worth one sixth of a half-shekel in Talmudic times (Chapter 1, Halachah 6). after ma'ah or prutah⁴⁷A coin of little value. after prutah, and says, "I am collecting money for my [half-]shekel": Even if he collects an entire purse-full, [all that he is required] to give is the half-shekel that he is obligated to give, and the rest of the funds remain unconsecrated. For [any] overpayment given for the [half-]shekel remains unconsecrated.

14. [The following rules apply when] money is discovered [in the collection area in the Temple] between the chest of the [half-]shekalim and the chest designated for donations [for burnt offerings]:⁴⁸Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements, which are based on those of the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:1). According to the description of the order of the chests in Chapter 2, Halachah 2, there are several other chests between the chests of the half-shekalim and the chests for the donations for burnt offerings. [If the funds are] closer to [the chest of] the shekalim, they should be considered as shekalim. If they are closer to [the chest designated for] donations [for burnt offerings], they should be used for that purpose.⁴⁹Actual closeness is considered the determinant of primary importance in this and other halachic questions. If the funds are equidistant between the two chests, they are designated as donations for burnt offerings. [The rationale is that] these donations [involve a more severe type of offering,⁵⁰And this becomes the determining factor, as stated in the following halachah. for they] are used entirely for burnt offerings. The shekalim, by contrast, are used for burnt offerings and for other purposes.⁵¹As explained in the following chapter.

15. Similarly, all the funds that are found between chests should be designated for the purpose of the chest to which they are closest. If [funds] are [discovered] equidistant between chests - for example, if they are between the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] wood and the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] frankincense - they should be designated [for purchasing] frankincense.⁵²For the frankincense was itself considered a sacrifice, in contrast to the wood, which was considered merely a medium to make possible a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). [If they are discovered] between the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] pairs of doves⁵³Which were sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. and the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] doves for burnt offerings, they should be designated [for purchasing] doves for burnt offerings.⁵⁴For the pairs of doves are offered, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering. Since the priests also partook of the sin offerings, the burnt offerings are considered more stringent.

The Kessef Mishneh cites the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro on Shekalim 7:1, where he states that a pair of doves were also donated from communal funds to be sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. In this manner, if the funds came from those donated for this purpose, the person would receive atonement.

This is the general principle: In all cases, we designate [the funds for the purposes of the chest] to which they are closest;⁵⁵Regardless of whether the contents of the chest are used for purposes that are governed by more lenient or more stringent requirements.if [the funds] are equidistant [from two chests], [we designate them] for the purposes that are governed by] more stringent requirements.

All the coins found on the Temple Mount are [considered] unconsecrated funds,⁵⁶As indicated by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2, a person was not allowed to enter the Temple Mount holding money in a visible manner. Thus, we can assume that most of the money lost there came from the Temple treasury, and that as the Rambam continues to explain, that money had already been redeemed through the purchase of the sacrifices. because the Temple treasurer does not take money out of the Temple treasury until he transfers their consecrated dimension to the animals that he purchases for sacrifices.